15.  Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

As of June 30, 2020, the Company had firm commitments to purchase inventories of approximately $26.5 million through Fiscal 2024. Certain inventory delivery dates and related payments are not firmly scheduled; therefore, amounts under these firm purchase commitments will be payable upon the receipt of the related inventories.

Lease Commitments

See Note 16—Leases.

Other Commitments

The Company has agreements with certain of its distributors requiring that if the Company renders parts obsolete in inventories the distributors own and hold in support of their obligations to serve fielded microturbines, then the Company is required to replace the affected stock at no cost to the distributors. While the Company has never incurred costs or obligations for these types of replacements, it is possible that future changes in the Company’s product technology could result and yield costs to the Company if significant amounts of inventory are held at distributors.

Legal Matters

Federal Securities Class Action

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the “Kinney Complaint”) and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on November 25, 2015 (the “Grooms Complaint”).

The Kinney Complaint alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal and financial obligations to us. The Kinney Complaint also alleged that our financial statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that we lacked adequate internal controls over accounting. The Kinney Complaint alleged that these public statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The Grooms Complaint made allegations and claims that were substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both complaints sought compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed in the consolidated action. The putative class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint was June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 17, 2016. On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2017. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed June 2, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2017, and defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on July 28, 2017. The court vacated the hearing that was scheduled for August 18, 2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2018, defendants filed an answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a trial date of March 17, 2020. On June 26, 2018, the Court entered an order vacating all deadlines through the end of October 2018 and temporarily staying formal discovery and other proceedings to allow the parties time to conduct a mediation. The parties participated in mediation on September 24, 2018, which did not result in a settlement. On November 16, 2018, after further settlement discussions, the parties advised the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action in its entirety. The agreement in principle was subject to several conditions, including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that was satisfactory to all parties, and preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April 12, 2019, and filed supplementary declarations in support of the motion on May 2, 2019. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on May 17, 2019. On September 24, 2019, lead counsel for plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. On October 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. On November 15, 2019, the Court issued an order approving the settlement and the payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and class representative payments, and entering final judgment in the action. Our insurance carrier funded the settlement amount.

Federal Individual Securities Action

An individual securities complaint was filed against us, our Chief Executive Officer, and additional unidentified defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following caption: FiveT Investment Management LTD, et al., v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:18-CV-03512 on April 25, 2018. The lawsuit alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our revenue, sales, and operations because of alleged improper revenue recognition and backlog calculations related to BPC. The lawsuit alleged that these statements constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The complaint also asserted claims against all named defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of California Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710, and California Corporations Code sections 25400 and 25401. Additionally, the complaint asserted a cause of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. It demanded compensatory damages for the amount of damages allegedly suffered, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fees.

On June 29, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Common Law Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation. The Amended Complaint asserted claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, against the Company, Mr. Jamison, and unidentified individual defendants. The Amended Complaint demanded damages in an unspecified amount, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and fees. Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on August 17, 2018. The parties participated in a mediation on September 24, 2018. The mediation did not result in a settlement. On October 12, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, seeking to reinstate the cause of action for violation of California Civil Code section 25401. On November 29, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which asserted claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of California Civil Code section 25401 against the Company, Mr. Jamison, and unidentified individual defendants. On December 20, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2019, the parties reached a confidential settlement of the action and the suit was dismissed with prejudice on July 1, 2019. Our insurance carrier funded the settlement amount.

State Derivative Lawsuits — California

On February 18, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Stesiak v. Jamison, et al., No. BC610782. The lawsuit alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust our account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay us. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, that we institute corporate governance reforms, and disgorgement from the individual defendants. On May 5, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On May 10, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 20, 2018, the Court entered that proposed order. A status conference is scheduled for August 20, 2020.

On June 8, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action entitled Velma Kilpatrick v. Simon, et al., No. BC623167, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust our account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay us. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty. It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that we institute corporate governance reforms. On August 23, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 20, 2018 the Court entered that proposed order. A status conference is scheduled for August 20, 2020.

The parties in both of the above state derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation held on September 24, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding corporate governance reforms to be implemented in settlement of the action. The parties fully executed a stipulation of settlement on July 14, 2020. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2020. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for August 28, 2020. We have not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2020 as our insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.

Federal Derivative Lawsuits

On March 7, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Haber v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-01569-DMG (RAOx). The lawsuit alleges that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that we institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On May 13, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order.

On July 12, 2016 and July 18, 2016, respectively, two additional purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, under the caption Tuttle v. Atkinson, et al., No. CV16-05127, and Boll v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-5282, respectively. The lawsuits allege that certain of our current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to us, but allowed us to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and our financial condition. The Tuttle complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, and the Boll complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Both complaints demand damages sustained by us as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that we institute appropriate corporate governance reforms. The federal derivative actions were stayed until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action were either granted with prejudice or denied in whole or in part. On March 9, 2018, following the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until the close of fact discovery in the federal securities class action. On March 13, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation.

The parties in the above federal derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation held on September 24, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding corporate governance reforms to be implemented in settlement of the action. The parties fully executed a stipulation of settlement on July 14, 2020. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 27, 2020. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is currently scheduled for August 28, 2020. We have not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2020 as our insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount.

Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Turbine International, LLC.

On February 3, 2020, Capstone Turbine Corporation filed suit against its former distributor, Turbine International, LLC (“Turbine Intl.”), in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: Capstone Turbine Corporation v. Turbine International, LLC; Case No. 20STCV04372 (“Capstone-Turbine Intl. Litigation”). We have alleged claims against Turbine Intl. for breach of contract and for injunctive relief relating to the parties’ prior distributor relationship, which terminated at the end of March of 2018, and Turbine Intl.’s failure to satisfy its payment obligations under certain financial agreements, namely an accounts receivable agreement and promissory note in favor of Capstone. As remedies for these claims, we are seeking compensatory, consequential, along with injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.

On March 18, 2020, Turbine Intl. filed its answer and cross-claims in the Capstone-Turbine Intl. Litigation. In its cross-claims, Turbine Intl. has asserted claims against Capstone, and individually against Mr. James Crouse, Capstone’s Chief Revenue Officer, for breach of contract under the distributor agreement, accounts receivable agreement and promissory note, fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the unfair practices act, violation of racketeer influenced corrupt organizations act, and conspiracy to commit fraud. As remedies for these alleged claims, Turbine Intl. are seeking compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages along with attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. Capstone answered the cross-claims on May 7, 2020. On July 8, 2020, Capstone filed a motion to amend its complaint. A hearing on said motion and a case management conference is scheduled for August 19, 2020. We have not recorded any liability as of June 30, 2020, as the matter is too early to estimate.